I empathize with the author’s intent to address the tragic explosions that can occur at illegal butane hash-oil production sites. Unfortunately, I believe this bill takes a very expansive approach that may not ultimately solve the problem. The Department of Public Health is currently working on regulations that will be finalized at the end of this year that move this type of production out of the shadows and into a safe and regulated environment. I believe any additional legislation aimed at curbing illegal butane use should be more narrowly tailored, and not place a uniform limit on an industry that has many other legitimate uses.

This is good news for butane manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers and retailers, who will not be forced to acquire customer information, maintain substantial records or coordinate with the Department of Justice.

Assembly Bill AB 1120 would have allowed those with commercial extraction licenses to get butane for closed loop extraction and allow people to refuel their lighters and dab-torches. The text of the bill follows:

Health and Safety Code 11107.2. (a) It is unlawful for a manufacturer, wholesaler, reseller, retailer, or other person or entity to sell to any one customer more than 600 milliliters of nonodorized butane in any 30-day period. …
(d) The limitations in subdivisions (a) and (b) shall not apply to any of the following transactions:
(1) Butane sold to manufacturers, wholesalers, resellers, or retailers solely for the purpose of resale.
(2) Butane sold to a person for use in a lawful commercial enterprise, including, but not limited to, a volatile solvent extraction activity licensed under Division 10 (commencing with Section 26000) of the Business and Professions Code or a medical cannabis collective or cooperative described in subdivision (b) of Section 11362.775 of this code, operating in compliance with all applicable state licensing requirements and local regulations governing that type of business.
(3) The sale of lighters, torch lighters or other appliances, or lighter refill canisters that contain or use nonodorized butane and contain less than 150 milliliters of nonodorized butane.

The registry was intended to prevent large scale sales of butane to the public and appears to be an effort to block home “BHO blasting,” to make resin extract, which has a legacy of exploding garages and homes while driving consumption of the solvent-extracts.

California’s solvent extract ban, HSC 11369, was originally written to prevent methamphetamine production. However, the broad language of the law has plagued people who try to use safe extraction methods like closed loop solvent extraction, CO2 and even alcohol-evaporative concentrates. This is due to the definition in the law.

The legislature has recently improved this definition, fortunately, in Senate Bill 94.

11362.3. (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(3) “Volatile solvent” means a solvent thatis or produces a flammable gas or vapor that, when present in the air in sufficient quantities, will create explosive or ignitable mixtures.

We expect that home extraction labs will fade away as commercial production and access become more available, but there will always be a few people who can’t learn from others’ mistakes. Be on the watch for more efforts to go after butane supplies.

Solvent extracts and concentrates are covered by a number of California laws and case law.

Propositions 215 and 64 both included extracts but did not remove cannabis from the controlled substances list. The Health and Safety Code 11379.6 “Meth House” statute, below, includes cannabis because it is on the list of substances in HS 11054, but since 2015 HS 11379.6(d) specifically mentions cannabis extraction. For many years that has meant BHO was legal to possess but not to make. The People v Bergen decision held that it is the process, not the product, that is banned. People v Luna established the prosecutor’s burden of proof. When the legislature passed MCRSA, the medical marijuana regulations, it included a license to make volatile extracts. The following year, a provision was added to HS 11362.775 for an interim local license before the MCRSA licenses issue. Prop. 64 mirrors that licensing process for nonmedical use and modified the legal issues on extraction by including in HS 11362.3(a)(6) the term “volatile” rather than simply “chemical extraction.” Continue reading Hash oil, BHO, chemical solvent extraction laws→

People v Luna: “while the [chemical extraction] manufacturing process need not be complete, it must at least be started.”

“[W]hile the [solvent extraction] manufacturing process need not be complete, it must at least be started.” … “At the time appellant was arrested, he had no ability to begin manufacturing hashish, which expert opinion established is an instantaneous as opposed to an incremental process. In order to begin manufacturing hashish, appellant still had numerous steps to accomplish, including assembling the components of the manufacturing device… ” Continue reading Luna: Hash oil manufacturing case needs all components→

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act 2016 did not repeal all the previous criminal penalties on marijuana but adjusted them downward and allows for more social justice. This section describes the remaining criminal penalties, downward resentencing for people with priors, destruction and expungement of records, early release from incarceration and juvenile justice.

Proposition 64 Section 4. PERSONAL USE.

The personal adult use section of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act 2016 (AUMA) initiative defines marijuana, legalizes it and establishes parameters for lawful use and responsible behavior. Age of consent at 21 years includes Legal adult use one ounce of marijuana and eight grams of concentrate, Grow six plants per residence and keep or give away the harvest, Lawful amounts not basis for search or seizure, No local bans on possession, sharing or discrete, enclosed gardens, Medical Marijuana exemptions. Responsible public behavior includes Open container rule, Marijuana DUI, Impairment issues, Workplace, Property rights, Infractions and tickets, Medical Marijuana exemption. Criminal statutes in Section 8. Continue reading California: Personal Adult Use of Marijuana→

People v. Bergen: Medical use is not a defense against charge, use of chemical extraction to manufacture a controlled substance

Note: Because marijuana and extracts are in the controlled substance list, because the HS 11379.6(a) chemical extraction ban is a general intent offense and because the medical marijuana laws do not list a specific protection from the chemical extraction charge, there was no defense. In 2015 the legislature passed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act creating a dual state and local license for this activity.

Life in prison for pot?
If Prop. 64 passes, that could change

One million people convicted of marijuana-related misdemeanors and felonies could petition to have their records changed or cleared, the nonprofit organization estimates. That would give them wider access to jobs, housing and other services that are currently out of reach.

“The criminal code changes are so profound that, even if I didn’t like other things in the initiative, I would vote for it just for that,” said Chris Conrad, a longtime marijuana activist who’s backing Prop. 64 even as many friends in the medical cannabis community remain divided over the measure.

…

But law enforcement could no longer use the smell of marijuana, or the presence of paraphernalia, as a basis for broader searches.

Conrad, who has served as an expert witness in some 2,500 marijuana-related cases, said removing weed as probable cause will eliminate a common point of contact with police that often escalates into something more serious.

“Out of all the court cases I have been involved with, probably 50 percent start off with cops saying they smell marijuana,” he said.

Concentrated: A new era for cannabis extracts in California

Chris Conrad, a cannabis legal expert and author of “The Newbies Guide to Cannabis & The Industry,” said the type of extraction can also produce what is commonly known as an “entourage effect” or “ensemble effect.”

“There is a combination of 100 plus molecules in marijuana that have this medical effect depending on how they interact with each other and the human body,” he said. “That’s what a lot of people think is so great about cannabis.”